Summary Judgment, JNOV and New Trials

Question 1

Summary Judgment and Questions of Law

Answer 1

• summary judgment presupposes judge can enter domain of factual issues
• notion of threshold legal issue: whether there’s sufficient evidence to make a rational factual determination
• designed to make sure juries don’t act irrationally - before jury can decide factual issue on behalf of party w/ burden of production, judge must decide if there’s sufficient evidence to permit reasonable people to make such a finding

Question 2

Voluntary Dismissal

Answer 2

• outlined in Rule 41 (a)(1) and (a)(2)
• plaintiff can request to dismiss the case voluntarily
• usually without prejudice, but see notes for conditions

Question 3

Involuntary Dismissal

Answer 3

• Rule 41b
• would primarily be if plaintiff fails to prosecute or comply w/ court order
• counts as an adjudication on the merits

Question 4

Dismissals that Usually Don’t Qualify as On the Merits

Answer 4

• lack of jurisdiction
• improper venue
• failure to join a necessary party under Rule 19

Question 5

Directed Verdict

Answer 5

• a.k.a. judgment as a matter of law
• governed by Rule 50(a)
• happens after the party has been heard on a certain element but before it goes to the jury

Question 6

Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict

Answer 6

• governed by Rule 50(b)
• means jury has already delivered the verdict, but judge can still grant a finding in favor of the party against whom the judgment was rendered
• also known as a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law

Question 7

Rule 50(a)

Answer 7

• deals with directed verdicts in circumstances where there’s a jury

Question 8

Rule 50(a) Requirements for Directed Verdict

Answer 8

• party must have been fully heard on the issue at trial
• court must find that reasonable jury would not have legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue

Question 9

Rule 50(a) - Options

Answer 9

Court can either:

• decide a particular issue against the party OR
• can decide entire claim against the party - this happens if the claim/defense could only have been maintained with a favorable finding on the issue the judge is deciding against them (ie. you haven’t proved an essential element of your claim->your whole claim gets denied as a matter of law)

Question 10

Rule 52(c)

Answer 10

• addresses directed verdicts where there’s a judge rather than a jury
• uses different language than 50a b/c judge is both making the decision as to whether the evidence is legally sufficient and whether or not to believe it

Question 11

How does the evidence get considered in Rule 50(a)?

Answer 11

• judge is supposed to consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party (must take nonmovant’s conceivably believeable evidence as true + give nonmovant benefit of all reasonable inferences)

Question 12

What does the moving party need to do in a 50a motion?

Answer 12

• needs to specify the judgment sought and the law and facts that entitle the movant to that judgment

Question 13

Rule 50a Test vs. Rule 50b Test

Answer 13

• tests are identical - only difference is that jury verdict has now been rendered

Question 14

Rule 50a Test vs. Rule 50b Test

Answer 14

• tests are the same - only difference is that one occurs before jury reaches a verdict and the other occurs after

Question 15

JNOV and Constitutionality

Answer 15

• constitutionally problematic b/c 7th Amendment says “no fact tried by a jury” may be re-examined
• Rule 50b technically skirts around this by saying if directed verdict is denied at close of all evidence, “court is deemed to have submitted the action to the jury subject to a later determination of the legal qs raised by the motion”

Question 16

Procedural Quirks for JNOV

Answer 16

• in order to bring motion for JNOV, party needs to have brought 50a motion first
• failure to file motion for JNOV may constitute waiver of opportunity to challenge sufficiency of the evidence on appeal

Question 17

TwIqbal - Impact on Rule 8 vs. Rule 56 and 50

Answer 17

• TwIqbal has significantly narrowed space between Rule 8 and the other two -> the standard is now virtually the same, just a matter of what it’s being evaluated on the basis of (pleadings vs. discovery vs. evidence at trial)
• Rule 8 now asking whether jury would be reasonable to find in your favor on the basis of the factual content you have pleaded
• reduces the distinction to procedural posture - conceptually, they’re all the same

Question 18

Relationship Between Substantive Law and Standard

Answer 18

• sufficiency of the evidence always judged against the substantive law
• if substantive law requires that you produce evidence to convince jury of something at a burden higher than preponderance of the evidence (ex: clear and convincing), then you need to plead (8) or produce (56) enough to meet that burden of persuasion

Question 19

New Trial

Answer 19

• judge empowered to grant new trial under Rule 59 -> may be granted “for any reason for which a new trial has heretofore been granted in an action at law in federal court” (vague b/c operating in shadow of 7th Am. - notion of right to jury trial “preserved)

Question 20

Potential Grounds for New Trial

Answer 20

• most problematic - the verdict is “against the weight of the evidence” (Prof phrased as miscarriage of justice)
• judge realizes made a mistake that would be prejudicial error if considered by appellate court + there’s no way to correct it
• granting of new trial motions on grounds that verdict is so excessive or inadequate as to demonstrate jury misunderstood its duty or acted w/ extreme prejudice
• jury misconduct (ex: if juror has received a bribe)

Question 21

Reason Why a Judge Might Reject 50a But Deliver 50b

Answer 21

• notion of preserving jury’s verdict - if you are at the point of 50a, and you think it’s a bit on the fence as to whether or not to let it go to the jury, you may reject 50a so as to preserve the verdict + also give the jury opportunity to make what you believe to be the right call -> if they get it wrong, you then do 50b

Question 22

Strategic Arguments for 56 and 50a

Answer 22

• insufficient evidence of one or more elements to permit reasonable people to find true (inferences don’t stretch as far as pl claims)
• facts in a “fog” (ex: accident where both individuals die) -> no one knows what happened + jury would be engaged in “mere speculation”
• pl has submitted evidence, but evidence isn’t credible on its face + no person could believe
• reasonable person couldn’t find it meets the legal standard
• cases where evidence permits two equal but inconsistent inferences (most judges say not in a position to judge “equal” though)
• evidence that “must be believed” + negates pl’s claim

Question 23

Genuine Dispute of Material Fact

Answer 23

• means there are factual assertions that conflict
• as long as there are factual assertions that conflict + would go to critical element of the claim, judge CANNOT grant summary judgment or directed verdict - not in a position to evaluate competing evidence or witness credibility
• doesn’t matter at all what def has on other side - can only evaluate pl’s evidence

Question 24

What qualifies as a “reasonable” verdict?

Answer 24

• would there be an evidentiary factual basis for the jury’s verdict?
• if there is a genuine dispute of material fact, then, by definition, whatever the jury decides is “reasonable”

Question 25

Galloway v. United States

Answer 25

• SCOTUS case provided in textbook as an example of directed verdict
• deals w/ whether pl (WWI Vet) had established total and permanent disability by reason of insanity -> SCOTUS ultimately decides no

Question 26

Control of Jury - Ex Ante vs. Ex Post

Answer 26

• we don’t look into black box of jury ex post
• instead, we only control ex ante - make sure to provide a context in which there is something genuine for the jury to do (framework created by which jury decides based on facts)

Question 27

Difference Between New Trial Standard and JNOV

Answer 27

• for JNOV, you can’t weight the other side’s evidence - it’s ONLY based on what the plaintiff presented (did the plaintiff meet burden of production?)
• for new trial, it’s “great weight of evidence” - you DO weight the evidence on the other side -> even if plaintiff technically met burden of production, could still grant new trial if it’s vastly outweighed by defendant’s evidence

Question 28

Rule 50e

Answer 28

• if non-movant wins on appeal, the appeals court may grant the non-movant a new trial (if appeals court overturns the judgment as a matter of law)

Question 29

What happens when movant is also the one with the burden of production and persuasion?

Answer 29

• need to show that I have enough evidence + defendant doesn’t have anything, such that there’s nothing for jury to decide in defendant’s favor
• pl has facts + there’s nothing at all on the other side - not just showing jury could decide in their favor, but jury must decide in pl’s favor

Question 30

Standards for Courts of Appeals

Answer 30

• de novo - means appeals court gets to make judgment anew
• clear error - some presumption of legitimacy, unless there’s something clearly wrong
• abuse of discretion - respecting judgment of lower court (they’re in a better position to make certain judgments + should be second-guessed unless clearly wrong)